Personal jurisdiction may not be found where the proposed party does not have sufficient contacts with the state and the inclusion of the proposed party would not necessarily advance the ultimate termination of the case. Leja v. Schmidt Manufacturing, et al., Civil Action No. 01-5042 (DRD), U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Aug. 17, 2005.
Leja was injured during his employment while operating a sandblasting machine manufactured by the defendant Schmidt Manufacturing. Schmidt filed a third-party complaint against Sypris Technologies for indemnification and contribution. Sypris moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the district court granted the motion. Schmidt then sought reconsideration or, in the alternative, an interlocutory appeal. The district court denied the motion for reconsideration because it held that there was no clear error of law. It considered that Sypris did not have sufficient contacts with the state to warrant a finding of personal jurisdiction. It further held that including Sypris would not necessarily advance the ultimate termination of the case because not including Sypris in the lawsuit would not necessarily result in a second lawsuit. Furthermore, if a second lawsuit should arise, it would be between Schmidt and Sypris for contribution and would not include Leja as a party.